How Clinton lost it in the flyover country of the rust bucket states

h/t OldOzzie

How a train ticket could have saved the Clinton campaign.

The 2016 election came down to the plight of Rust Belt voters in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan.

Hillary Clinton ignored her husband’s advice and thus neglected the Rust Belt when campaigning. The Rust Belt ultimately rejected her. These rural voters — who heavily supported Barack Obama on the prospect of hope and change — voted for Trump in what they may believe to be their own economic self-interest.

The title hints that a trip on the train from Central Station in Washington DC (a punt kick from Hillary’s office) to Detroit would have told the Clinton team where they needed to make their pitch. But politicians don’t campaign on the train any more.

This entry was posted in American politics, Rafe. Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to How Clinton lost it in the flyover country of the rust bucket states

  1. Far Right Heretic

    A train? How proletariat of you. The elite class do not ride trains. Do you believe Hillary haw ever been on a train? Or Lord Malcolm?

    Of course, given how vibrancy has ruined our train system is I don’t hold it too much against them. Take a trip on the bankstown line some day. Its like the worst of Istanbul, Mogadishu, Bangkok and New Dehli rolled into one big mess of ‘diversity’

  2. Mark A

    Or Lord Malcolm?
    he did take the train but for a stunt to show up J Bishop only

  3. Far Right Heretic

    I cannot imagine Lord Malcolm on a train anymore than I can imagine him drinking a schooner in a pub, eating a meat pie or doing real work. I wonder if he burnt his suit after it touched the same dirty seats us plebs sit on?

  4. OldOzzie

    Even The Washington Post seems to have slightly wised up 2 weeks after the election

    Senate Democrats lost by doing nothing to separate themselves from Hillary Clinton – The Anchor

    Two weeks before Election Day, at the final Pennsylvania Senate debate, legendary Philadelphia newsman Jim Gardner began with what seemed like an easy first question. “Can you tell us,” Gardner asked Democrat Katie McGinty, “about one issue where you disagree with your party or your potential president?”

    “Thanks, Jim, and I do stand with Secretary Clinton,” McGinty said. She spent the next minute never distancing herself from Hillary Clinton. “I know this, Secretary Clinton will fight for working families and that’s what I’m going to do as well.”

    It’s now clear that Democratic strategists and the media spent too much time focused on the wrong question, asking how Republicans would separate themselves from their unpopular nominee, President-elect Donald Trump.

    Instead of Trump being a drag on Republicans, Clinton became the anchor to which Democratic candidates willingly attached themselves. Despite her deep unpopularity throughout the campaign, no Democratic candidate for Senate ever tried to separate themselves from Clinton in any meaningful way.

    The results are stunning in their consistency.

    Clinton lost Pennsylvania, the first Democratic presidential nominee to lose the state since 1988, with 47.6 percent and a little more than 2.8 million votes. McGinty lost too, by almost the exact same margin, with 47.2 percent and about 50,000 fewer votes than Clinton. Clinton lost Wisconsin, with 46.9 percent, as did former senator Russ Feingold (D) in the Senate race, with 46.8 percent and 1,800 fewer votes than Clinton.

    Again and again, as they positioned themselves as generic Democrats supporting Clinton, voters in turn treated these candidates quite generically.

    In its final ratings the independent Cook Political Report rated 11 Senate races as either “toss-up” or “lean Democrat” or “lean Republican.” Six of those Democrats finished within 1.4 percentage points of Clinton’s share in that same state, according to the Associated Press’s calculations. Three more fell well behind her.

    Only two Democrats in key races performed significantly better than Clinton: Evan Bayh, who got 125,000 more votes than Clinton in Indiana, and Jason Kander, who received about 230,00 more votes in Missouri. They both lost, by wide margins, in states where Clinton received just 38 percent of the vote.

    Not surprisingly, given their near-complete dependence on Clinton, Senate Democrats only won three of those 11 races — in Illinois, Nevada and New Hampshire. Those were the only three states of that bunch that Clinton put in her electoral vote column.

    It seemed like such a smart strategy a year ago, as the Republican primary became increasingly bitter and GOP incumbents in swing states fretted about their top-of-the-ticket problem. With fewer voters than ever splitting tickets among presidential candidates and down-ballot races, Democrats believed they could hitch their wagon to Clinton for victory.

    There was no overhaul to the party’s agenda after the 2014 midterms left Democrats in the minority and needing a five-seat gain this fall to reclaim the majority.

    Democrats talked about getting a better “message,” to a degree that it was clear many didn’t understand the difference between a message and an agenda. The message is the thematic umbrella — Clinton’s “Stronger Together” or Trump’s “Make America Great Again” — while the more difficult part is the granular policy agenda.

    In 2012 Vice President Biden struck gold with a campaign message: “Osama bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive.” But President Obama’s successful reelection campaign had a broad agenda focused heavily on tax fairness, pledging tax cuts for those making less than $250,000 and to raise taxes on the rich.

    By 2014 Democrats did not have a broad agenda. Instead, they proposed a minimum-wage increase and refinanced college loans for young voters, a guarantee of equal pay for equal work young female voters and new immigration laws for Latino voters. This fall, the only significant update was a more robust proposal to make college affordable.

    “The problem is they talk to people in segments,” Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio), who is challenging House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), told The Washington Post’s Daily 202 last weekend. “Here’s our LGBT community. Here’s our labor guy. That doesn’t work. You stop becoming a national party. That’s what happened.”

    [How Tim Ryan decided to challenge Nancy Pelosi]

    Aside from regional accent, or delivery style, Democrats sounded remarkably similar. In campaign appearances two days apart in mid-October, nothing distinguished Catherine Cortez Masto, the former Nevada attorney general, from Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick (D-Ariz.) in their policy positions.

    Cortez Masto won the seat of retiring Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), finishing within a few thousand votes of Clinton’s winning margin. Kirkpatrick got blown out by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) as Clinton fell far short there.

    Democrats mocked Republican efforts to localize their races and predicted Trump would define those campaigns. But in at least four states GOP incumbents broke free of their nominee, winning reelection by a significantly larger margin than Trump won their state: McCain and Sens. Ron Johnson (Wis.), Rob Portman (Ohio) and Marco Rubio (Fla.).

    McCain, Portman and Rubio put away their challengers so early that their national party didn’t spend resources there, pouring that money into other critical races.

    In the campaign’s final weeks, the undecided voters, particularly in working-class regions, broke sharply against Clinton. Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), the incoming minority leader, acknowledged that Trump’s anti-trade agenda and vow to bring back manufacturing jobs connected with some traditional Democrats.

    “It’s my view that the Democratic aspects of his economic program is what brought the blue-collar vote to him, more than anything else, trade being the tip of the spear,” Schumer said in an interview last week with The Washington Post.

    So, as the bottom fell out of Clinton’s campaign, Democratic Senate candidates had little to fall back on. Trump even became a bonus for some Republicans, winning by huge margins in Missouri and Indiana and by a larger-than-expected four percentage points in North Carolina.

    Some voters did split tickets for Trump and a Democrat — just not very much in Senate races. In Pennsylvania Democrats swept statewide races for attorney general, auditor and treasurer, all receiving more votes than Clinton or McGinty.

    In the North Carolina governor’s race, Democrat Roy Cooper is leading and likely to be declared the winner. He received 180,000 more votes than the party’s Senate nominee, Deborah Ross.

    That’s the margin between winning and losing.

  5. OldOzzie

    Why No One Pays Any Attention To The New York Times Any More


    I will be far from the first to note that the biggest loser of the recent election has to be the liberal media, led by its flagship outlet the New York Times. The Times went all in for Hillary, sometimes running as many as four anti-Trump front page stories in a single issue.

    Before this election the term “bias” was commonly used to describe the political coverage of the Times and other liberal media, and some even continued to use that term this cycle; but this time, the word “bias” was not an accurate description of what was occurring at the Times. The word “bias” would connote coverage that is somewhat slanted despite an effort at balance. For the Times and many others in this cycle, it was not a question of mere slant, and there was no effort at balance. The Times explicitly functioned as an arm of the Clinton campaign. By the way, in my view they are completely entitled to do that if they want. The problem was that their idea of how to maximize their help for Hillary was to combine smug and supercilious contempt for their opponent and his supporters with a completely fake pretense of objectivity. Was anybody fooled? Very few, I would think. The overall effect of the Times’s efforts was almost certainly to help Trump rather than hurt him.

    Anyway, now that the election is over, don’t expect them to have learned anything from the disaster. (Isn’t the fundamental characteristic of the progressive the complete inability to learn from experience?) Almost certainly, the ham-handed one-sidedness of their coverage will only get worse as they struggle to deal with the reality of a Trump presidency. Indeed, I already have my first good example.

    In Friday’s edition, the lead editorial has the headline “Denounce the Hate, Mr. Trump.” Supposedly the reason for the editorial is the outpouring of “bigotry and hatred” that the Times perceives as coming from Trump’s supporters in the aftermath of the election:

    [Y]ou [should] immediately and unequivocally repudiate the outpouring of racist, sexist, xenophobic, anti-Semitic and homophobic insults, threats and attacks being associated with your name.

    Funny, but I’ve been reading and viewing lots about riots and violence from Trump opponents, but I hadn’t seen anything at all about this so-called “outpouring” of offensive conduct from Trump supporters. So, New York Times, can you kindly provide us with at least an example or two of these post-election “racist, sexist, xenophobic, anti-Semitic and homophobic insults, threats and attacks” for which you claim Trump supporters bear responsibility? They give two. Here they are:

    Explicit expressions of bigotry and hatred by Trump supporters . . . have become even more intense since his election. On a department-store window in Philadelphia, vandals spray-painted “Sieg Heil 2016” and Mr. Trump’s name written with a swastika. In a Minnesota high-school bathroom, vandals scrawled the Trump campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again,” and next to it, “Go back to Africa.”

    But wait — what is the evidence that either of these acts was committed by a Trump supporter? The Times gives no evidence whatsoever. Moreover, these are exactly the kind of acts that Trump’s opponents have been engaging in throughout the campaign in the effort to discredit him. The famous Project Veritas videos that came out during the campaign caught Democratic Party and Clinton campaign operatives at the highest levels planning and coordinating dirty tricks to make it appear falsely that Trumps supporters were racists and bigots. I can’t say I know who did either of the particular acts mentioned in the Times editorial; nor would I say that Trump had no racists or other bad people among his supporters. But really, given what we know, what is the chance that these acts cited by the Times were done by a Trump opponent as opposed to a Trump supporter? Anybody who has been following this would put those odds at somewhere around 98 or 99% that Trump opponents were responsible. But in the total absence of any evidence, the Times would pin these acts on Trump supporters — and in sneering terms that would seek to make being a Trump supporter morally unacceptable (“expressions of bigotry and hatred by Trump supporters”). Is it any wonder that Trump supporters of good faith look on the New York Times with revulsion?

    Meanwhile, several days after the election, while one guy seems to have put an offensive allegedly-pro-Trump message on a Philadelphia store window, and another guy the same in a Minnesota bathroom, tens of thousands of Trump opponents continue their violent riots in cities including Los Angeles, Oakland, Portland, and even in New York City outside Trump’s home. As the riots have continued for days, there have been numerous reports of injuries, arrests, and extensive property damage, not to mention racist statements. What does this editorial have to say about that? It doesn’t mention the subject. Well, how about in the rest of this edition of the paper — surely they have a news article or two about these widespread riots and the conduct of the rioters? Actually, in this entire November 11 issue of the Times, there is not one single mention of these ongoing riots, whether in news, editorial, or even letters to the editor. And how about the call to Hillary Clinton to denounce those rioting on her behalf? Can’t find that either.

    Wow. It’s not just that we’re getting fake and baseless accusations of racism, sexism, homophobia, etc., etc., from these guys. It’s that they systematically suppress any information that doesn’t support their narrative of the moment. You can’t even find out from them what’s going on out there in the world. Is it any wonder that no one is paying attention any more?

  6. OldOzzie

    And the US Liberal re-assessments continue – and the first 4 paragraphs of the following Article is one the Liberal Party should study and absorb

    How the Left Created Trump

    Nov. 8 represented an explosion of anger on the right at years of smugness and disdain by liberals.

    Well before Donald Trump declared he was running—to the amusement of the liberal media and Washington establishment, who didn’t stop laughing until Nov. 8—and long before Hillary Clinton dismissed half of Trump’s supporters as “deplorables,” the right had gotten used to being looked down upon by liberals. The general attitude of the left was: Disagree with us? You’re probably racist, xenophobic, sexist, bigoted or all of the above. Indeed, for many liberal Americans, these prejudices have come to be seen as inseparable from identity of the Republican Party itself. And when the GOP went all-out Trump, it only confirmed to many liberals that their ideological opponents were no longer worthy of respect.

    The attitude extended way beyond election politics. Over the past few years at universities across America, for example, liberal students effectively banned Republicans from delivering commencement speeches by protesting speakers like Karl Rove, Rand Paul and Condoleezza Rice, forcing them to withdraw.

    On Nov. 8, it appears, the right decided it finally had enough of this smugness. Conservative voters—including many former working-class Democrats who made the difference in key states such as Pennsylvania and Wisconsin—sent the message that they’d had enough not only of losing economically, but also of being sneered at. Trump’s rise in popularity—and ultimately his election to the presidency—should be seen as a long-building reaction to grass-roots liberal activism that came to dominate the cultural landscape and claim victory after victory in the social arena, whether the issue was abortion or gay marriage or transgender rights, always accompanied by that same disdain for right-wing views as worthy of the Stone Age. Trump’s rise to power evolved out of this frustration, as Clinton’s campaign increasingly became an extension of liberal America’s smug style of debate—an attitude that no longer disputed on grounds of policy or intellectual differences, but on the issue of the integrity of the right altogether.

    By writing off right-wing Americans as deleterious to the ethical integrity of the country, left-wing Americans increasingly demonstrated that they hardly saw a place for the Republican Party in 21st century America at all. The ragtag nature of Trump’s campaign—delivering him to the forefront of the Republican Party while simultaneously dismantling it—only validated liberals’ righteousness. Recall that right up to election, the popular meme in the media was the conservative movement was in a state of collapse, and the liberals were dominant.

    “The left has done very well in the cultural wars in the last couple of decades,” says Dalton Conley, an American sociologist and professor at Princeton University, “but there’s often a backlash.”

    Now the reckoning comes. While there is a clear need to rectify the indisputable disadvantages faced by America’s marginalized peoples—from the LGBTQ community to Muslims and people of color—Trump’s victory seems to indicate that unmitigated social activism can have unintended consequences.

    Conley compares this to “the backlash after the civil rights movement in the form of Nixon.”

    Nowhere was this tension more apparent than America’s college and university campuses where students’ pursuit of social justice left many people feeling that their free speech was under attack. Expectations for teachers to reshape their lessons around the phenomena of “micro-aggressions” and “triggers” led many faculty members across the country to question their ability to educate students at all, without fear of offending them. Last year, Yale’s Erika Christakis was forced to resign following student backlash to a seemingly innocuous email that attempted to engage students with respectful discourse about cultural appropriation—following which, one student wrote in the Yale Herald, “I don’t want to debate. I want to talk about my pain.”

    Herein lies the problem with the left’s “by any means necessary” style of social activism: When any challenge to the prevailing liberal doctrine, cast under the wrong light, can forever cast one as a “racist,” those with dissenting opinions are left with only two options: concede, or retaliate.

    Trump appealed to the latter by forming the populist right-wing counterpart to the left’s stubborn ethos.

    Through this lens, Clinton’s candidacy can be seen as the political counterpart of liberal university students asserting that discussion is now off the table, where anything less than concession is morally suspect.

    To many Trump supporters, Clinton—whose own record is far from spotless—was merely another “PC” liberal griping about “micro-aggressions” and “triggering” language. To many white working-class Democrats, she had simply failed to address their increasingly pressing concerns.

    A Gallup poll assessing what Americans perceived as the “most important problem facing this country today” helps to explain the disillusionment of this once-faithful constituency: “Economic problems” consistently took the No. 1 spot, while issues like “lack of respect for each other” and “unifying the country” appeared at the bottom of the list.

    Trump’s campaign rhetoric and slogans were aimed directly at the former, while Clinton (“stronger together”) chose the latter. Rosenberg says Clinton’s misjudgment of voters’ concerns is his greatest criticism of her campaign.

    While Clinton traveled the country insisting that “America is great, because America is good,” Trump was busy cultivating a vision of economic prosperity—“make America great again”—with the promise of “beautiful” and “tremendous” and “big-league” change.

    And by waging a war against right-wing ethics, the Democratic Party, supported by the elite media, underestimated the true extent of Trump’s support—perhaps because most were too embarrassed to admit their allegiance—while playing right into the hands of Trump’s anti-“PC” rhetoric.

    For Trump supporters, the media were seen as an extension of the Democratic elite—and they weren’t entirely incorrect. The brazen media bias—not just against Trump, but also, more pertinently, against Bernie Sanders—and the Democratic Party’s undermining of Sanders only validated the frustration of the right, and Trump’s narrative of a corrupt, elite Democratic chokehold on American politics.

    Ironically, while liberal America flouted the authoritarian undertones of Trump’s campaign, their own party demonstrated a lack of interest in public opinion, foisting their chosen candidate on Americans as if to say: We will decide what’s best for you. The result was more fuel to the growing fire of frustration among Americans for political elites and the status quo—power structures that a Trump presidency promised to topple.

    By the end of the primaries—in which Clinton was often referred to as the “presumptive nominee” before being prematurely declared the nominee—the arrogance of the Democratic Party superseded itself once more by assuming Clinton’s presidency inevitable.

    During the Clinton-Trump debates, liberals everywhere rolled their eyes at the embarrassment of a seasoned politician like Clinton needing to debate such an obviously ham-fisted opponent. Vox’s Emily Crockett put her finger on it with an article titled “Clinton’s debate performance spoke to every woman who has had to humor an incompetent man.”

    liberals are seemingly yet to grasp why they lost this election.

    While of course the Democratic Party has a future, Trump’s presidency will require liberals to reassess a flawed, righteous identity that all but forced right-wing America’s—so desperate for change—hands to the stove, to elect the only candidate who demonstrated the potential for reform.

    Yet that reckoning has yet to happen.

    In the years to come, when we look back on Trump’s victory, this is why it will be remembered less as a win for Republicans than as a failure for the Democrats—the result of liberal America’s unwillingness to compromise, or even show magnanimity in the face of all its victories on social issues

  7. OldOzzie

    WaPo: Say, maybe Hillary was the boat anchor rather than Trump

    During this past election cycle, the media did their best to Akinize Donald Trump in Senate and House races across the country. Every time Trump said something outrageous or offensive — and Trump did provide plenty of that material — media outlets would challenge Republicans to repudiate Trump. The assumption was that, as happened in 2012 with Todd Akin in Missouri, Trump would become a boat anchor for the GOP and lead to massive down-ballot losses.

    How’d that work out in 2016? Paul Kane at the Washington Post astutely sums up the mistaken assumption by assigning the boat-anchor award to Hillary Clinton:

    It’s now clear that Democratic strategists and the media spent too much time focused on the wrong question, asking how Republicans would separate themselves from their unpopular nominee, President-elect Donald Trump.

    Instead of Trump being a drag on Republicans, Clinton became the anchor to which Democratic candidates willingly attached themselves. Despite her deep unpopularity throughout the campaign, no Democratic candidate for Senate ever tried to separate themselves from Clinton in any meaningful way.

    The results are stunning in their consistency.

    Clinton lost Pennsylvania, the first Democratic presidential nominee to lose the state since 1988, with 47.6 percent and a little more than 2.8 million votes. McGinty lost too, by almost the exact same margin, with 47.2 percent and about 50,000 fewer votes than Clinton. Clinton lost Wisconsin, with 46.9 percent, as did former senator Russ Feingold (D) in the Senate race, with 46.8 percent and 1,800 fewer votes than Clinton.
    There has been some post-election debate as to whether down-ballot Republicans like Marco Rubio, Toomey, and Johnson helped out Trump or vice-versa. The Hill’s Reid Wilson told me on Tuesday’s TEMS that it’s all but certain that Trump had coattails in these states rather than the other way around, but the extent of it is still uncertain. Pennsylvania is a good case in point. The results in the presidential and Senate race were nearly identical, but Toomey won in districts and counties where Trump trailed, and Trump soared where Toomey struggled. The closeness of their results was almost coincidental.

    Either way, Kane hits the nail on the head and makes a point that the media has so far avoided. They focused almost entirely on one unlikeable candidate without addressing the impact of the other unlikeable candidate. Hillary’s favorables were almost as bad as Trump’s and her numbers on trustworthiness were worse, but almost no one asked whether these Democrats should do more to distance themselves from their party’s nominee.

    Why? They assumed that most voters shared their perspective that Trump was much more unacceptable than Hillary to the point where it looked like the very thought that it might be the other way around was simply inconceivable. Rather than treat both candidates equally and pepper their down-ballot partners even-handedly about the presidential nominees, the media ran the Akin Plan on Trump and just assumed it was working. That assumption blinded them to the mood of the electorate outside their bubble, and, well … we’ve seen the result over the past two weeks of hysterics and paranoia.

    Kane’s analysis also makes another point, one that Kane himself doesn’t make but is clear in the data. Trump’s election was no fluke; voters around the country rejected Hillary and the Democrats who were With Her in no uncertain fashion. Hillary might lead in the popular vote, but that’s an artifact of wide margins in California and New York. Democrats lost in nearly every swing state and even in states where their status seemed assured — Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. All of the handwringing over the popular vote ignores that reality, and will likely perpetuate the blindness shared by Democrats and the media over what happened in the 2016 cycle.

    The Full Washington Post Article is worth a read:-

    Senate Democrats lost by doing nothing to separate themselves from Hillary Clinton

  8. Zyconoclast

    Or Lord Malcolm?
    he did take the train but for a stunt to show up J Bishop only

    That would be Bronny Bishop.

  9. ard vark

    There is no central station in DC. You mean Union station (can you not bring yourself to use the word)? Hillarys office was in Brooklyn NYC, a long stones throw. Apart from that yr spot on scoop

  10. Boambee John

    California already has a secession movement. If it succeeds, and New York follows, the Democratic Party is finished.

  11. Ellen of Tasmania

    Apparently, the Trump win was the Russian’s doing:

    Washington Post Names Drudge, Zero Hedge, & Ron Paul As Anti-Clinton “Sophisticated Russian Propaganda Tools“”

    I think ‘Russia’ has become the latest newspeak word for small government people. Quite a few new newspeak words and phrases coming out of this US election. Interesting.

    I can think of a few people who will be offended they didn’t make the list, and many who will be highly amused they did.

  12. A Lurker

    California already has a secession movement. Happy days!

  13. Ant

    After reading the article in Huffpo posted by OldOzzie yesterday, I took a Google Streetview tour of Braddock, Pennsylvania (Pittsburg), and checked out the house prices at one of the local agent (Keller Williams).

    Entry point is USD$2,500 (I haven’t missed any zeroes) + $1,091 in taxes. It’s a dump, but for USD$44,500 you’ll do OK – as far as living in Braddock goes.

    Imagine living there and being asked to vote for an old corruptocrat who’s been on the tax-take all her life and surrounds herself with beautiful mega-wealthy entertainers while telling you to forsake your already miserable existence so that the world can be saved from Global Warming as she jets around in chartered first class.

  14. Andrew

    Lurker, other than a perpetual GOP POTUS and Congress what’s the implications for the world of a People’s Republic of East Pacifica? (And I assume there is a 97% probability that WA and OR go with them – it makes more sense for them to defend the coastline, and they are even more Marxist than DPRCa. They won’t want to be the blue-haired stepchild of a uniformly red nation.)

    Should this be a discussion thread?

  15. Andrew

    Recall that right up to election, the popular meme in the meeja Cat was the conservative movement was in a state of collapse, and the liberals were dominant.

    For example:

    Artist Formerly Known As Infidel Tiger
    #2109893, posted on August 4, 2016 at 5:11 pm
    Chronic TDS sufferer IT

    No, I am a chronic stickler for reality. (Except on the weekend, then I get real funky.)

    Trump is on track to lose all 50 states.

    Prove me wrong with facts.

    Infidel Tiger
    #1976580, posted on March 15, 2016 at 6:20 pm
    There is no way in hell Trump will be able to unite the right around his general election campaign after the way he and his supporters have treated the othe candidates.

    He will be the nominee and lose all 50 states barring a miracle.

    In better news it looks like Sanders has a good chance of beating Hillary in the big primaries tomorrow.

  16. Ant

    What’s your point, Andrew? That Trump was a shoo-in around March or August this year, or that only one outcome was ever possible then – a Trump win?

    I seem to recall that his campaign wasn’t run particularly competently and his personnel changes were fairly frequent – from the top down pretty much. There was at times plenty of doom and gloom on the Cat amongst the Trumpbots that he’d stuffed it; and stuffed it more than once.

    But what always left hope was that his opponent was so woeful a campaigner, not to mention an individual, that Trump, a pretty pathetic man himself in some respects, remained in with a chance.

    In any case, while some here gave him little hope, including me when his minders lost control of him, others confident that he would win were as wrong about the outcome as anyone else.

    John C, for example, one who did great work with the analytics and not to single him out for criticism, said less than 3 weeks before the election: “Trump is going to win in a landslide of monumental proportions.”

    There was no landslide, although the result was certainly monumental for other reasons.

    The triumphalism, understandable in the days after the election, is getting to be a bad look now, especially seeing how narrow and fortuitous in some respects Trump’s victory has been.

  17. Boambee John

    A “Peoples’ Republic of East Pacifica” would either change current policies, or be overwhelmed by, illegals, or go bankrupt within five years.

  18. egg_

    Take a trip on the bankstown line some day

    Did that in the nineties, like the third world with folks with chickens in cages on the train.

  19. egg_

    I doubt that literally a Lord Waffleworth style token train trip would have saved the Hildebeest’s diapered @rse.

  20. jupes

    The triumphalism, understandable in the days after the election, is getting to be a bad look now,

    But not as bad a look as that from this site’s most pathetic loser.

    After such a public beclownment over the last 18 months or so, one would think you would show a bit of humility and self awareness. But no, you’re still doubling down on the stupid.

    Sad. #loser

  21. Fisky

    Oh God, Ant STILL hasn’t got over Lyin’ Ted.

    Get over Lyin’ Ted, Ant. He’s never going to be President, OK?

  22. Pat Warnock

    Mr Blanchfield, New Mexico Internet CEO summed it up – Trump voters are ignorant and I will not do business with them.

  23. Andrew

    In any case, while some here gave him little hope, including me when his minders lost control of him, others confident that he would win were as wrong about the outcome as anyone else.

    There’s a big difference between “giving little hope of getting to the 269 needed to win” and forecasting a 538-0 result. There’s a big difference between “I think he’s going to lose” and actively campaigning for Crimton to “teach the GOP a lesson.”

    I see you’ve grown tired within several days of the fact that you, IT, Dot, Lucy and several others like you were With Her. Tough – the Cat’s United Never Trumpers sang their tune from 2015, and certainly peaked around March (see quotes above). That’s 8 months that the UNTs abused USSR (you were the most vocal against anyone who wished Trump any success against the Kleptoharpy), Steve Kates and other rational Cats. So you don’t get to whine about it until about June.

  24. notafan

    Objecting to the incessant reposting of tweets by the Alt-right is not the same as opposing Trump.

    Trump clearly shifted his policy positions during the campaign but you would never had known that if you relied on what the alt-right were saying.

    What we had was ‘Trumpmania at the Cat’ fatigue, not that what was posted here had any influence on the election outcome anyhow.

    Who actively campaigned for Clinton, Sinc was the only one I recall having that preference.

  25. Fisky

    Ant was bitterly disappointed with Trump’s massive win, and the reason for this is he is acutely aware that Ted Cruz could never have done it. He would have been the honorable loser giving a gracious concession speech while his TruCon supporters adjust their bow-ties longingly.

  26. JC

    Andrew

    You seem to be making things up as you go along and appear to believe that if people didn’t grab Trump’s apron strings at the beginning they’re beneath contempt.

    Trump’s policies at the beginning of the campaign were fucking horrendous. At the time, he was talking about actually raising taxes for the wealthy and simply tearing up trade agreements. There was no talk from him about deregulation and no talk about lowering taxes. He wanted to tighten monetary policy along with a desire to see the dollar fall – these last two things are mutually incompatible.

    Recall all this?

    So lets stop the bullshit.

    Anyone who supported that sort of economic swill needs treatment in a mental institution,

    The first major policy initiative to come out of his campaign was the energy policy. Me – an anti-Trumpster- strongly supported it and so did other guys here that were anti-Trump.
    I came out and said it was beautiful – a regular masterpiece of a policy.

    Then the tax initiative came out and they were just as wonderful and I along with others you mention here, were just as supportive.

    He then walked back his policy on treatment illegals. He went from throwing out 12 million people to the promise of throwing out any illegal who a rap sheet in the US.

    So lets cut the nonsense about the reluctant Trump supporters who unlike someone like USSR held back or even opposed the first version of Trump as against the latter version.

    It’s really shoddy of you to be making these ridiculous claims by glossing over who Trump was and is now.

    Furthermore – well before the first Trump version came out – it was me, IT and CL who first set our sights on him pointing out he was potentially a standout.

    Frankly the 356,897 Mike Sandwich tweets were a turn off, posted by a woman with next to no understanding of economic policy and a large amount of mental issues.

    No more revisionist bullshit please.

  27. Barry bones

    Suggesting a simple train trip to meet the plebs would have won it for Hillary is complete tosh.

    Coulda-woulda-shoulda !

    Trump had her measure, period.

    So no more sooking, let us build the wall !!

  28. Far Right Heretic

    @Andrew: Would those team Clinton supporters also happen to the biggest cheerleaders for open borders, multiculturalism and ‘free’ trade on the Cat?

    @Fisky: No one was more disappointed than the board of Goldman and Sachs. As consolation they have Lord Malcolm.

  29. Linden

    Back in Oz during our last fed election, was not it Roy Wyatt that he thought it was ‘savvy’ to run his election campaign almost entirely via Twitter, of course he was a twit in thinking it would work because he got booted, just another example of someone who was too smart for his own good, politically that is!

  30. JC.

    @Fisky: No one was more disappointed than the board of Goldman and Sachs. As consolation they have Lord Malcolm.

    Possibly crocodile tears. Bank stocks have ripped higher since the election because Trump announced a post election policy of bank deregulation and the repeal of most of Dodd Frank.

    Here’s the bit why I seriously worry about some of you. There seems to be no fucking appreciation nor understanding of the changes Trump’s views and policy positions have undergone. It’s like some of you are lost in appreciating the first version of Trump to the one that’s around now.
    Incredible.

    Here’s a question for you. Detail the first policies Trump announced that you supported and why along with an explanation along economic lines.

    GO!

  31. Andrew

    Andrew

    You seem to be making things up as you go along and appear to believe that if people didn’t grab Trump’s apron strings at the beginning they’re beneath contempt.

    One of the advantages of posting direct quotes from people predicting 538-0 is that I can’t be accused of making stuff up. Lucy published a series of guest posts so his idiocy can’t be covered up.

    Trump’s policies at the beginning of the campaign were fucking horrendous. At the time, he was talking about actually raising taxes for the wealthy and simply tearing up trade agreements. There was no talk from him about deregulation and no talk about lowering taxes. He wanted to tighten monetary policy along with a desire to see the dollar fall – these last two things are mutually incompatible.

    Recall all this?

    We’re not talking about “at the beginning.” IT’s excellent prediction was in March 2016. The #neverTrump stupidity by definition didn’t begin until he clinched the nomination.

    T666 didn’t have any policies – probably still doesn’t. I said a year ago that I found him fascinating because never before had a bloke run for office without providing ANY indication what he actually planned – every single thing he said was either a lie, a misdirection for people he would be negotiating against as POTUS (see Wall, Mexico), or contradicted by something else he said (lower USD, higher interest rates; balancing the budget, increasing spending, cutting tax and paying off the govt debt in 2 terms). If you believed that T666 stood for something you didn’t like, you weren’t paying attention.

    So lets stop the bullshit.

    Anyone who supported that sort of economic swill needs treatment in a mental institution,

    But it’s perfectly sane and rational to advocate a vote for the kleptoharpy, as many here did?? If you took just the most outrageous shit that T666 ever said, that would still make him by far the preferred pick over someone whose foreign policies currently have the US trying to start a war with Russia by actually bombing their troops in Syria.

    The first major policy initiative to come out of his campaign was the energy policy. Me – an anti-Trumpster- strongly supported it and so did other guys here that were anti-Trump.
    I came out and said it was beautiful – a regular masterpiece of a policy.

    You seem very defensive – I recall you criticising T666 but don’t remember you being With Her like some of the UNTs.

    Then the tax initiative came out and they were just as wonderful and I along with others you mention here, were just as supportive.

    He then walked back his policy on treatment illegals. He went from throwing out 12 million people to the promise of throwing out any illegal who a rap sheet in the US.

    Consensus around here seems to be FOR enforcing immigration rules, rather than allowing people to choose their own country of preference without any consequences.

    So lets cut the nonsense about the reluctant Trump supporters who unlike someone like USSR held back or even opposed the first version of Trump as against the latter version.

    I’m criticising the UNTs, not the people who criticised T666 in mid 2015. Once T666 was nominated, by then we had seen a great deal more info about just how evil and corrupt the DNC was. Remember, the brutal bashings in San Jose (explicitly endorsed by the leftard Mayor) occurred during the primaries. Gays with broken noses, wymminz pelted in the face with fruit, rallies cancelled at unis because of violence. All this was happening in the open, let alone the stuff we were reading from the leaks. Anyone who endorsed Crimton AFTER the primaries was backing fascism because they felt that would help their long-term cause of getting Lyin Ted Scruz nominated in 2020.

    It’s really shoddy of you to be making these ridiculous claims by glossing over who Trump was and is now.

    He’s the same person. The same pussy-grabbing, loudmouth person he has always been. A bloke aged 69 does not fundamentally change on his 70th birthday. He’s never had policies – he said shocking stuff to get noticed in the primaries, and slightly less shocking stuff to get elected. Then more conciliatory stuff minutes after his election to advance his interests as POTUS-elect. He hasn’t changed, and Bernie’s Brownshirts haven’t either – they’re still out there still burning cars (with the support of the UNTs, who felt the International Socialists Wukkaz Party should be rewarded with the Presidency).

    Why are you defending people who endorsed a candidate who employed thugs to get help her election by bashing the attendees of her opponent’s rallies, and setting fire to his HQ? Quite apart from her other 800 disqualifying felonies and policies?

  32. Snoopy

    It’s very simple Andrew. People from Melbourne think baristas are engaged in manufacturing.

  33. Far Right Heretic

    @JC: I supported Trump the moment he said he would build a wall with Mexico. Then when he said he would ban muslims that was just icing on the cake. For those of us who live in the real world, life is more than economic policy and not everything can be judged in terms of its economic benefits. That you only view the world through what is an economic benefit speaks volumes.

    Of course, banning muslim immigration has the massive economic benefits of reducing welfare parasites and reducing the money needing to be spent on counter terrorism, sex crimes and fraud.

Comments are closed.